I should like to begin by expressing our condolences with the people of Italy on the appalling tragedy that struck them and to express the hope that in addition to the aid which the Community is giving to Italy and to which the Taoiseach referred, we ourselves would also be able to contribute generously from the resources at our disposal. The Minister a short time ago mentioned that the disaster relief fund has been replenished by additions under Supplementary Estimates and I hope that as a result of that we can give some assistance and some small indication of our concern for the tragedy that struck that country.
Coming to the communique and the section dealing with the economic and social situation, it is difficult to see in this section anything other than the same meaningless verbiage that has been incorporated in all such communiques for years past, when we were in Government and since the present Government have been in office. It contains the usual platitudes concerning the effect of oil price increases, the need for vigilance and attention to future prospects, concern about the rapid increase in unemployment, the need for reduction in rates of inflation and so on and the need for combined efforts of governments with the collaboration of employer and labour organisations. All these feature in all these communiques and they are so many words that add up to nothing in terms of concrete action.
I had intended mentioning one other matter as another example of platitudes, that is a reference in the communique to various "Community instruments must continue to serve first and foremost policies aimed at reducing structural unemployment and at improving infrastructure and the economic situation of the less favoured rural regions" because anything in a communique which talks about things continuing to happen does not contribute anything new, but I was really taken aback to discover that the Taoiseach claims great credit for this and says he succeeded in having recorded in the Presidency Conclusions that Community instruments must be primarily directed at improving infrastructure and the economic situation in these regions. That is not what the communique said. It said "must continue to serve first and foremost policies aimed at" achieving these things. So, there is nothing new here at all, it is one more platitude and the Taoiseach's contribution to the platitudes was not perhaps made as clear by him in his speech as it might have been. There is nothing new here; it is only a continuation of existing policies.
This is all desperately thin and disappointing. It is clear that the Taoiseach's efforts which we support and applaud to get the heads of governments to concentrate on the overwhelmingly important problem of the Community's economy and unemployment have essentially failed. It is obvious that major member governments will not face this issue, believing they can get away with it in their own conscience and are not greatly bothered about economies such as ours. I believe that the interests of truth and the interests of progress in the Community would be better served if, when they returned from meetings of this kind Prime Ministers said bluntly that in areas of this sort there has been a failure to achieve anything, rather than try to cover up that failure. I understand the temptation—I am not suggesting that we, in Government, managed to avoid succumbing to it. All Prime Ministers coming back from European Council meetings naturally tend to try to avoid saying too bluntly that they have not achieved very much. It would be better if we were more plain speaking about this and that might lead to more progress in future. I know the Taoiseach did his best because of the importance of the meeting to this country. I am making no criticism whatsoever of him but I do not think he should be covering up the failure of other people to respond to those efforts.
One matter arises which is of considerable importance, the mandate given to the Commission. I hoped the Taoiseach would have told us something of the Irish input to this, as to how he sees further development of Community policy and what prospects there are for any further development in Community policies within the 1 per cent limit that remains. Is there any prospect for anything other than contraction of and perhaps undermining of Community policy so long as this remains? I would like to ask the Minister a specific question but this form of debate does not allow him to answer it, so it is a rhetorical question and I shall put it in that form. Did the Minister raise the question of the 1 per cent limit? It is interesting to read in his speech the following two phrases:
It is our view that in an enterprise the size of the Community, there can be no such thing as immobility and that if the Community does not develop, it will regress.
and
We believe that the Community approach should not be restricted by any arbitrary limit on resources.
We are all aware the Taoiseach believes this. It would be useful for the House to know whether he said this at the meeting. The very fact that he confined himself to a restatement of his own beliefs and made no reference in his speech to having raised the matter would suggest he did not raise the question of this limit. It is a pity if he did not do so because time is running very short and the more plain speaking there is on this point, the better. I asked, on a previous occasion, whether we had sought any allies on this matter. I got an evasive reply but I note from what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said today that since then — I am glad if my pressing of the matter had anything to do with it — he has had contact with his Danish colleague and proposes contact with his Dutch colleague, so some effort is now being made, very belatedly, to seek allies on this crucial issue.
There is one aspect of this to which I have to come back again. The Taoiseach will recall we made pre-conditions for the successful conclusion of the Greek negotiations about decision making in the Community and also at the outset about additional resources being provided to cover the needs of new members joining the Community. Having dropped one pre-condition, what does the Taoiseach propose the Government should do with regard to ensuring the implementation of our first pre-condition, that Community resources be increased pro rata with the needs arising from enlargement in relation to the proposed admission of Spain and Portugal and given the 1 per cent limit? Is it not the case, factually and arithmetically, that these two countries will be beneficiaries from Community membership because of the nature of their net economies, and that the scale of the Spanish economy is such that the amounts involved, by any calculations, will be very large and that even if we were not now iminently facing the problem of the 1 per cent limit, the addition of these countries would completely undermine the present financial circumstances of the Community?
Given that we had the assurance in July 1976 that the resources of the Community will be enlarged pro rata with the need arising from the extension of its membership, the logical consequence of that must be the increase of 1 per cent limit. Why has it not been pursued? I suppose the excuse could be made that at the point when Greek membership became an issue finally to be settled, we had not reached the 1 per cent limit but we were near enough to it for the matter to be raised at that point. We are certainly now at the stage where, before Spanish and Portuguese membership becomes an issue, we will have reached the 1 per cent limit. At that point we had in writing, as a result of the negotiations in 1976, a commitment that Community resources would be increased pro rata with the needs of new members. Given that commitment of 1976, our position has to be that there can be no enlargement until the 1 per cent limit is raised unless we are going to give away everything we won in 1976. While I would not be too surprised if the Minister for Foreign Affairs did that, I hope the Taoiseach would not. I am thinking back to fish when I say that.
The Taoiseach should make the fullest use of that guarantee written in, in July 1976, to the Greek negotiation as a basis for argument in relation to the 1 per cent. There is no way in which, given the needs as net beneficiaries of Spain and Portugal, they can become members without pushing us past the 1 per cent limit and, therefore, as I foresaw when I put down that requirement and got agreement to it, we have in our hands a powerful negotiating weapon which cannot be denied. There is no logical answer that any state can make to this. Once they agreed to that in 1976, and you could make the case for letting Greece in without raising the 1 per cent limit, there is no way in which you can make a case for any other country without raising the 1 per cent limit. That provides the Taoiseach with a very powerful argument and he will need powerful arguments to deal with this whole issue. As other member countries are as concerned as we are that Spain and Portugal should join we have something here that should be used not just for our benefit or selfishly, but also for the benefit of new members. If this matter is not settled they too will suffer, because the benefits they will get from EEC membership will be correspondingly reduced, quite apart from the fact that the common agricultural policy would be undermined completely at that point and be an additional demand on Community resources.
I note the Taoiseach dismissed in a single line the whole page of the communique dealing with the Three Wise Men. He was a wise man to do so. It is the most unconsciously funny document which has come from any European Council since they started in November 1974 arising from the meeting in Paris. It tells us this report is a rich source of ideas and suggestions and that these ideas and suggestions are so plentiful that the European Council's deliberations and the specific conclusions to which they give rise for the time being do not entirely cover all the suggestions in the form of the Three Wise Men, nor do they exhaust the matter. It says that independent of any decisions which may be taken in the near future the report is and will continue to be a fertile seed bed of ideas and suggestions on which the institutions of the member states may draw for their deliberations. Whoever wrote that either had his tongue in his cheek or he must be a very dull man. The latter is possible. I can see why the Taoiseach dismissed it in one line.
The excuse that it is such a wonderful report and so full of ideas and suggestions that the European Council cannot possibly cope with them all — without any commitment they will ever cope with them at all or ever refer to it again — is a typical evasion by that body of an issue it does not want to tackle. It would be better if the Taoiseach were more blunt about matters of this kind and when things are shelved with this kind of verbiage he should say so to this house, he went on to refer to the appointment of the new Commissioner, the Minister for Finance. I would like to offer our congratulations to the Minister on his appointment and assure him of our support in that capacity when he has been appointed. We will give him our co-operation and, in due course, we will be seeking his co-operation whether in Opposition or in Government, and I am sure we will get it. I am sure he will contribute to the work of the Commission constructively and in the tradition established by his two predecessors.
I am grateful to the Taoiseach for his courteous references to Commissioner Burke whose efforts in a number of different and disparate areas have been extremely productive, much more so than anybody foresaw at the time of his appointment. It was thought that the complexity of the issues and the number of questions he was given to handle might make it difficult for him to achieve very much, but he has achieved a lot and from our point of view and that of Northern Ireland he has achieved a considerable amount. I congratulate him on his handling of the matter of aid to Northern Ireland and aid for cross-Border projects. This has helped to unite all parties in Northern Ireland against the neglect of the British Government and its attempts to divert some of the funds. The skilful way in which this was handled by Commissioner Burke achieved one of those rare moments of unity between the different parties in Northern Ireland. It particularly helped to ensure greater British attention to the economic needs of Northern Ireland. I am asking the present Minister for Finance, when he takes over, to show the same concern for Community help to Northern Ireland.
On the Middle East, my understanding is that the visit by the Belgian President of the Council and future President of the Commission, Gaston Thorn, will be followed up by a visit or visits by the Netherlands Foreign Minister to the Middle East. It is important to use the present vacuum period to ease out possible elements of a solution in the Middle East and to clear the way for a new initiative. It is a vacuum period because of the change of Government in the US. It will certainly be next spring before we have a clear-cut US policy on the Middle East. The electoral position in Israel means that there cannot be any political move by Israel until an election takes place. It is not due until next autumn, but perhaps it will take place in May or June. In the Arab camp the divisions arising in large part from the Iraqi-Iranian war make it difficult for their side to pursue a clear-cut policy.
A time when all three parties are all inhibited from making any positive moves is the time when something needs to be done to keep the peace and to get some forward movement going, and the Community's involvement at this stage is primary. I hope the Community will either do or avoid three things. First, in their approach to the problem I hope the Community will avoid getting caught on the Camp David hook. The Camp David issue should be fudged because strict adherence to the Camp David formula could block progress towards the gestation of a solution, but the ditching of it could weaken Egypt, the phrase used to me by one of the Labour Party leaders in Israel, when I was there at the end of September and early October, "opening a new window in Camp David" indicates the kind of flexible approach the Community should adopt in this matter.
I think the Community are right to explore the parameter of a solution on such issues as withdrawal from the occupied territories, the issue of self-determination, of security, which is vital for Israel but is important also for the Arab countries who have suffered conflicts in the past 30 years, and the difficult issue of Old Jerusalem. They are issues in which all of us of all religions have an interest. The work of the Community of ten will be co-operation in looking into the areas and in preparing possible alternative solutions to these problems. It will be an important contributory factor in regard to an ultimate solution. It will ensure that when the different parties are ready to get down to negotiations some of the preliminary grounds will have been covered in a constructive way.
A third thing the Community can do, apart from avoiding the Camp David hook and looking at the possible shape of the solution, is to explore various negotiating formulae, ways of getting over the obstacles posed by Israeli objections to negotiating with the PLO, which are very widely held and which I found to be universal in Israel with one single exception, the Minister for the Interior who has publicly expressed to me and people with me his willingness to negotiate with the PLO if they change their charter and if terrorism ceases to be a factor in their approach. Apart from that single politician, that is clearly an obstacle to progress. Various ways of getting around that must be explored and the Community through the mission of the Netherlands Foreign Minister can help to look at these options and prepare the ground for the negotiations that will take place, we hope, when the various political situations have been resolved and when the situation on the Arab side has clarified itself following the termination of hostilities between Iran and Iraq.
In my visit I was encouraged by the evidence of a clear desire by the people to look towards a solution. All were trying to see how a solution could be arrived at even though a very wide gap exists between them. The fact that that will to find a solution is universal, even though the gulf between them is deep, means that the European initiative at present is timely and offers some hope of progress. I passed over my notes on my trip to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in case anything may emerge from them that would be of some use to him in conjunction with his and the Government's findings and those of other countries. I am glad Europe is playing a useful role in this area.
The Taoiseach referred to the Madrid discussions. I agree with what he said, which effectively means not making the mistake of having another Belgrade where the conference proved disastrous from the Western point of view. I am glad there is greater firmness on the part of the West on this occasion.
On Poland the Taoiseach's statement says all that could be said helpfully at present. We all hope the Polish people, through the channels of communication open to them, are aware of the intense concern and sympathy of the peoples of the world in regard to their situation and of the universal hope that they will be left to resolve their internal problems without outside intervention. However, Community aid to Poland is not very forthcoming. The reference "in so far as resources allow" in relation to the question of aid is grudging. The Community should not stint themselves in any way to help the Polish economy during the winter and thus help to head off the unrest that could otherwise arise and provoke a terrible tragedy. None of us would forgive it if failure on our part to provide that aid contributed to a disaster. From what I have read of the European Council meeting or from the wording of the communique I do not think there is sufficient determination to give this matter the necessary priority. Indeed it is not the first time that the Community have been unwilling to take up their responsibility.
On the Lebanon the communique does not bring things any further. UNIFIL is still left in an impossible situation. In spite of all the words that have been spoken, action has not been taken to put this right. Our soldiers are still at risk and without any kind of political backing from the powers, especially the US, to which they are entitled. My overriding impression from the meeting — I suspect it is the Taoiseach's as well — is that the Community turned away from their own problems, preferring to comment on, without in most cases being able to do much about, the rest of the world. Except in the case of the mission to the Middle East and the possibility of some aid to Poland, the rest does not add anything or achieve anything, involving words rather than action.
At the same time, in the internal forum, we have the disturbing situation of the evident determination of some countries to strangle the development of the Community by holding to the 1 per cent VAT limit. Our role here must be to mobilise support for the expansion of the Community's role, as we did when in office, working with the smaller countries on this issue. I am glad the Minister for Foreign Affairs, even if belatedly, has decided to do this, as we did on issues of regional policy and fisheries when we were in power.
It was, as most of these meetings were, a disappointing one. I do not think we can fault the Taoiseach for that. He is only one amongst ten and there are a number of large countries, whose determination to do nothing, so often blocks progress, but he must have been somewhat disappointed by the outcome even if he has felt it more dramatic not to express his disappointment here. We can only hope that the pressure of events and a more enlightened and long-term sense of self interest than at present prevails in the larger powers, will lead them, and through them the Community as a whole, to play a more constructive role in the future, both in regard to the internal problems of the Community area and in regard to some of the problems in world affairs, where its reluctance to act constructively and on large enough a scale as could yet be the case with regard to aid to Poland, remains a disappointing factor.
